Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Does capitalism force a percentage of a countries population into poverty?>

Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

This is pure speculation.

This was something i researched extensively as i am long Ford (and have been) since the beginning of cash for clunkers.

That does not make it wrong.
What incentive was created, to purchase more cars, after the credit expired?

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

The used car market (total vehicles sold) was was down an excess of 20% since late 2008, signaling a significant price reduction in the used car market. This however was nowhere near the reduction in the new car market.

Used car market values are up over a year ago, some more pronounced than others.
In a weak job market and contracting wages, that isn't a plus.

I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard

Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

Originally Posted by reefedjib

You are kidding right? You don't see that the real wages earned by our poor has grown over the past 200 years? I wish I had the data to demonstrate it. Ok, I found a graph. The bottom 20th percentile has doubled it's income over the past 60 years.

The bottom 20th percentile has doubled it's income over the past 60 years, but the cost of living has quadrupled.

Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Problem is deregulation did hurt with the finance market... a lot.

We tend to privatize profits and socialize losses with the financial system, moral hazard is bound to develop.
We've been doing this for near on 70 years.

I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard

Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

Well, there are obviously some jobs that do not pay well, but society wants/needs them. They pay little because the type of work can be done by anyone, and the potential labour pool is large. Therefore, these people will, in a capitalistic system, never make much money unless they take on multiple jobs or very long hours. It's unavoidable without external factors working on the system with that reality in mind (e.g. Social Services). Some people must be on the bottom rung, and given some people also do not have much potential for advancement due to innate ability, poverty will exist.

Without some kind of regulation, people will naturally try to maximize their welfare to the disadvantage of others in the market, so long as they are able. And when you have a large group of people who are unskilled, or even a glut of people who ARE skilled, you will have that problem.

Wealth will concentrate significantly in the hands of a few, over time, which will, if not addressed, lead to social unrest. It's happened a myriad of times throghout history, but no one ever learns from it. So far, wages have remained relatively stable, while this isn't so for the wealthier. Family income has gone up, but that's deceiving, because you need to work longer, harder, and have more people in the family working to do that, or else you will notice the stagnation.

Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla

That does not make it wrong.
What incentive was created, to purchase more cars, after the credit expired?

The fact that these companies did produce cars that people desired is a positive for consumption demand trends. In the absence of the program, who knows how much lower both demand and production would have fallen for the trend to reverse.

To make a statement such as "it would have occurred anyways" ignores the time preference. I agree, it would have eventually reversed, the question is when?

Used car market values are up over a year ago, some more pronounced than others.
In a weak job market and contracting wages, that isn't a plus.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

The fact that these companies did produce cars that people desired is a positive for consumption demand trends. In the absence of the program, who knows how much lower both demand and production would have fallen for the trend to reverse.

To make a statement such as "it would have occurred anyways" ignores the time preference. I agree, it would have eventually reversed, the question is when?

Consumption for the sake of consumption, is not a net good.
If efficiency in consumption is not, at least moderately, taken into account; it can be worthless.

Demand and production had stabilized at the lower levels, it was already set to rebound as the recession was ending/ended.

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

What happened to auto prices the year before? Were they constant?

Come on now, you know this time period is deflationary.
Prices should not rise that much.

I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard

Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

I have perused it and what seems a bit absent is the review some of the externalities associated with the CARS programs in Spain.

Some efficiency gains may have been made but at the expense of others, not reviewed.

I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard